Where informing about and asking to fight spam is considered spam, the situation gets to what it came to here.
The zeartul case is a clear enough case of a scam.
I am not well informed about it, but I think he was a pioneer of the "no refunds" policy, and he did get some fraction of an SBD from me, his bot did not vote on, and he refused to refund after I informed him about it and since then I knew not to use it and not to deal with him.
Of course trying to alarm others collectively would have been futile, ignored and considered immature in any case it would have been noticed.
Whose responsibility was the ETC case?
(Why) Does it matter whose responsibility you consider it to be?
Certain acts demand extreme actions, or else psychopathy is rewarded.
It is also burglary victims' fault that they were not sufficiently armed, trained and alert.
If it depended on me, I would have used extreme actions in less extreme cases than zeartul.